Hello Brownout, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

Strange Spam attacks designed to blacklist a decent, respectable page?[edit]

There seems to be somthing very fishy here, User:Brownout, don't you think?

Why has the Puerto Rican Independence Party's Wikipedia page been persistently "cleansed" of even the www.independencia.net regardless of whether the link is stripped or not? Also, have you seen the vandalism attacks this Wiki article and its fraternal pages in other languages have consistently suffered?

Have you seen that apparently they are trying to add the Puerto Rican Independence Party's website (independencia.net) to various Wiki pages so it gets "blacklisted"?

I don't agree: as clearly stated here, those links were widely added on many wikis in articles regarding Porto Rico and not the Puerto Rican Independence Party, that is spamming. I must add that the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle of political propaganda is against this policy. --Brownout(msg) 06:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Brownout, why did you or someone else eliminate the website link from the Puerto Rican Independence Party's Wiki article if your objection is to the Puerto Rico links?

Anyways, regarding another issue, if someone added the links to the Puerto Rico Wiki (with whatever intention), isn't that completely valid. It is a government-sanctioned instrumentality and there are many other links to other Puerto Rico government instrumentalities in the English Wiki on Puerto Rico.

I really don't see this as Spam, do you? Aren't you being unfair with that link?

As already said: I don't think so, actually I don't even know the political status of Puerto Rico, I simply replied at your (?) technical question in Talk:Spam blacklist. --Brownout(msg) 08:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You have helped us in previous years with translations and for that we are most grateful. Now we turn towards the 2011/12 fundraiser. It may seem forever away, but work has already begun getting everything ready to go. This year we want to have landing pages covering as many countries in as many languages as possible.

Right now, we want to figure out who is interested in translating for the fundraiser. This year we're hoping to have more of a solidified "core" group of translators that we can count on to have work done by a few key dates, but we'd also welcome help from people who are willing to just help out when they can.

With this edit, you wrote: "I don't see any new objective element, just the same users opposing the previous block opening a new discussion."

What users? Nobody opposed the standing block. I explicitly asked for it, before it was imposed. The new discussion is about a deeper consideration of long-term effect. It's about users considering that no good is accomplished by the block, the point having been made, and that there is some damage, particularly with LangCom. This dismissal of a reconsideration, supported by many users who were not involved in the original block, or who commented there without opposing it, or even supporting it, as if it was just a bunch of disgruntled users who didn't get what they wanted, is a gross and misleading distortion of the history. You even claim, about me, that "actually you didn't support the block", when I obviously did. You might also notice that I closed the RfC. Please redact these errors. Thanks. --Abd 16:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Langcom is just an excuse, you really think that they can't work without the help of a compulsive abuser? Do you mind taking a look at his work there? He archived discussions, last time in Sept 2010, before that another related edit in January, a reditect in Spring 2009, do I have to continue? He made 20ish edits related to langcom on meta in the last 3 years, how much do you think his block is damaging their work?

You closed the RfC after he was already blocked, there was not much to say at that point.

You're seeking a statement to fix what you perceive as a damage to your honour and reputation, sorry but it's not going to happen. --Brownout(msg) 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand. I'm suggesting that you remedy what is a damage to your honor and reputation, because deliberately leaving a false statement standing after the error is clear is equivalent to lying. Sure, I closed the RfC after the block, when else? But I asked for the block before Abigor was blocked. You are interpreting everything the way you want,ignoring anything contrary. You have not responded to the substantive issues I raised here, about your unsupported claim about the users requesting unblock. Too bad. Suit yourself. I don't need anything from you, this was for the wiki and you. Good luck. --Abd 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, just a little note requested by an wikimedia-admin operator: Your access to the IRC channel #wikimedia-adminconnect will be revoked due to you no longer holding administrator access on any Wikimedia wiki. If this is a mistake and you currently do hold these permissions on any wiki and access has been removed feel free to re-request access at operator requests or ask an operator to restore access. Regards, John F. Lewis (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)